Introduction
Management is a significant element of the business. According to Batenburg and Maur, this explains why many people are systematically studying management skills (902). Despite this, there are numerous management styles, most of which have overlapping features. Even though the efficiency of one management style over the other is debatable, it is important to have a clear understanding of the various management styles to develop appropriate management strategies concerning a given business setting.
Comparison between management strategies of the 1970s and the present
A review of the state of affairs between the present approach of teams and team roles and the one used in the past (the 1970s) shows a significant difference. For example, it is evident that in the early seventies, team roles were assessed based on team members’ behavior. However, a lot of things have changed presently. For instance, even though organizing employees to ensure they carry out a particular task within a given organization is the duty of a manager, it is considered part of a team’s role.
McCrimmon asserted that the management strategies adopted in the seventies were based on the fact that despite the availability of clear responsibilities and roles of teams in an organization, it was unlikely that they would perform according to the provided blueprint (1064).
The implication is that the success of any team in an organization should be inspired by the existence of a balance in the teams’ roles and responsibilities, having experts, doers, and leaders. According to Pearsall and Venkataramani, the strengths and weaknesses of any team are determined by the characteristics of the individuals forming up a team (735). In the 1970s, individuals in a team could assume diverse team roles autonomously, as well as without taking into consideration active decision making.
Costanzo and Tzoumpa noted that the management styles used in the seventies were different concerning the organizational condition (146). For example, the universalism approach was based on the management process of controlling, coordinating, commanding, organizing, as well as planning. Secondly, communication between a manager and team members was also significant in ensuring efficiency in employees’ performance in an organization.
Thirdly, motivating team members were also considered important in the achievement of organizational goals and objectives. However, the objective management strategy focused on the aspect of decentralizing and laying out achievement goals for every team member, as well as following up on their progress, and was thus a suitable approach to effective management. Another approach used by managers in the seventies was the one-minute management, which ensured that all subordinates had clear, as well as specific goals, and were given enough freedom to carry out their tasks. However, this strategy required the staff to provide an analysis of their tasks to point out any failures, which saved the manager’s time.
In the seventies, majority of the management strategies used were based on the notion that management had to be task-oriented, and that is focused on efficiency, ensured activities were carried out appropriately, while on the other hand, leadership was considered to do the right thing, which included motivating employees by offering rewards. Such an aspect of thinking has changed nowadays. The styles of management and the strategies adopted by managers in ensuring that operations in an organization are successful have been changing gradually.
This is attributable to the fact that technological advancement and increase in competition has increased pressure on organizations to be competitive. For this reason, managers in any organization are required to come up with management strategies that ensure that their organization has an advantage over their competitors and that the employees are highly focused on the achievement of any set organizational goals and objectives.
Nowadays, management strategies are based on the shift of individuals’ thinking about the idea of management from styles to functions. As such, management strategies focus on activity contrary to the case in the 1970s whereby management was defined in terms of roles. Dierendonck and Groen pointed out that the change of the view of management had allowed the use of diverse styles without referring to any specific style (735).
The new approach focuses on the promotion of better leadership whereas allowing managers to take care of anything required to enhance organizational success by compelling people to achieve their targets. The new approach to management strategies ensures that managers inspire, facilitate, empower, as well as develop an organization through teams, as opposed to the mechanistic view of management used in the seventies.
Best strategy/method to manage a team
Concerning the two approaches, the 1970s’ approach that replaced management with leadership and the modern approach that focuses on management based on functions, it is evident that both have their advantages and disadvantages.
For example, according to the 1970s’ approach of management, the roles and responsibilities of the team members were highly valued since the management strategies used were based on the notion that management should be task-oriented, and that is focused on efficiency and ensured activities were carried out appropriately (Dierendonck and Groen 345). Such a method of managing a team did not take into consideration the role of leadership in the success of any organization as far as the achievement of set goals and objectives was concerned.
Contrary to the 1970s’ approach of management that was task-oriented, the modern method of managing teams ensures that the managers contribute immensely to the success of any given task within the organization by leading whenever necessary. The significance of such an approach can be examined from the perspective that the modern approach to management factors in the role of a leader in a team. In the light of Syeda’s assertion, such significance is attributable to the fact that the success of any team engaging in a particular task is determined by the presence of equilibrium in terms of role and responsibilities (26). For this reason, the modern approach to management takes into consideration the roles of doers, leaders, and experts in a team.
Also, the inclusion of the significance of leadership in the management of any given team provides directionality to the team. As such, the modern approach of team management can be considered to be highly focused on the achievement of any objectives and goals set by any organization. Lowy and Hood attribute this to the fact that the leader ensures the experts provide their expertise while the doers engage in their elements within any given task (21). Such an approach confirms that every member of any team carries out their duties, thereby ensuring that the overall objectives of any tasks are achieved much easier. For this reason, it can be seen that the modern approach to management is much more advantageous than the 1970s’ approach as far as the management of a team is concerned.
Works Cited
Batenburg, Ronald, and Wesley Maur. “Belbin Role Diversity And Team Performance: Is There A Relationship?” Journal of Management Development 32.8 (2013): 901-913. Print.
Costanzo, Laura, and Vicky Tzoumpa. “Enhancing Organisational Learning In Teams: Has The Middle Manager Got A Role?” Team Performance Management: An International Journal 14.3/4 (2008): 146-164. Print.
Dierendonck, Dirk, and Rob Groen. “Belbin Revisited: A Multitrait–Multimethod Investigation Of A Team Role Instrument.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20.3 (2011): 345-366. Print.
Lowy, Alex, and Phil Hood. “Leaders Manage Dilemmas”. Strategy & Leadership 32.3 (2004): 21-26. Print.
McCrimmon, Mitch. “Thought Leadership: A Radical Departure from Traditional, Positional Leadership.” Management Decision 43.7/8 (2005): 1064-1070. Print.
Pearsall, Matthew, and Vijaya Venkataramani. “Overcoming Asymmetric Goals in Teams: The Interactive Roles of Team Learning Orientation and Team Identification.” Journal of Applied Psychology 100.3 (2015): 735-748. Print.
Syeda, Nimra. “Mediating Effect of Constructive Controversy: Team Personality Composition and Team Performance.” African Journal of Business Management 6.1 (2012): 23-46. Print.